Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Gaylord’s final proposal to local workers unacceptable?
First, the proposal didn’t even address the issue of local workers. Their proposal discussed local contractors — which is a priority for anti-worker contractors — but doesn’t say anything about the actual men and women who will do the work. In fact, the anti-worker contractors admitted in July that they intend to ship in workers from outside the San Diego area if Gaylord hires them.
Second, the proposal was dishonest. It puts union contractors at a competitive disadvantage to nonunion contractors. It demands that any union contractor pay for the privilege of bidding and then rigs the system so anti-worker contractors will get the work. Those are the same contractors who admitted they intend to ship in workers from outside the San Diego area.
How did Gaylord’s final proposal put union contractors at an unfair disadvantage?
First, Gaylord required union contractors to pay to bid on the project. But what’s most alarming is that nonunion contractors would be able to see the union bids before submitting their own, which creates an uncompetitive playing field.
However, the number one reason Gaylord’s offer wasn’t serious is that it didn’t even address our main concern that Gaylord needs to make a legal commitment to give these jobs to local workers first.
Why did unions submit environmental comments about the project?
Not everyone understands why labor unions care about the environment, and we haven't been the best at explaining the paradigm shift we've experienced over the past decade. Irresponsible construction today can result in restricted construction in the future. That’s why we believe building and construction have to be conducted in an environmentally friendly way. Plus, our members live here, raise their families here and breathe the air here. Rather than try to fight environmental laws, we're committed to making them stronger.
That said, only one organization threatened to sue Gaylord, and that’s the corporate anti-worker group Associated Builders and Contractors. They threatened to sue if Gaylord worked with us.
What compromises did you offer Gaylord?
We compromised on nearly everything. We removed our provision requiring unionized workers. We ensured competitive bidding by requiring bids from at least three contractors for all work on the project. We offered to allow union and nonunion contractors to bid on the job. And we excluded contracts worth less than $75,000 from the terms of the agreement to make sure small business contractors got a fair deal. However, we wouldn’t compromise on our core requirement that if Gaylord wants $300 million in public money, they need to make a legal commitment to hire workers from Chula Vista and the surrounding area first.
You say Gaylord is untrustworthy, why?
In Chula Vista, Gaylord agreed to give the construction and on-site jobs to the local workforce, only to backtrack. They also backed out of a promise to build an environmentally friendly convention center and tried to sneak in a larger building at the last minute without informing the community. Next, they tried to play hardball by pretending to withdraw from the Chula Vista project altogether, only to announce their return within 30 days.
In Maryland, Gaylord said they’d rather pay a fine than hire minority contractors. In Tennessee, they bought the Grand Ole Opry, promising not to make drastic changes. Instead, they turned it into a mall and sold it.
In nearly every community they come to, they bully mayors and city councils into giving them more and more money from the public trough.
Gaylord is not a trustworthy partner for Chula Vista.
What are you going to do now that Gaylord is negotiating behind closed doors with the Port?
We remain extremely disappointed that Mayor Cox has chosen to side with an out-of-state developer rather than work with us to guarantee that $300 million in public money will result in jobs for the men and women who elected her. We are also surprised that the Port — a public agency that committed to allow the community to have a voice in shaping how this incredible piece of property is developed — has chosen to impose a gag order on negotiation proceedings. This isn’t the way a democracy should work. People’s livelihoods are at stake and local officials should be protecting citizens, not selling them out in backroom deals with big-shot developers from out of state.
While Mayor Cox and the Port have abandoned the local workforce, we remain committed to ensuring that if Gaylord wants $300 million in public money, they make a legal commitment to hire the local men and women who live in Chula Vista and the surrounding region first. We will not back down.
Does the recent National Labor Relations Board decision regarding project labor agreements change anything about the Local Workers First Campaign?
The National Labor Relations Board ruling simply applied a 1975 Supreme Court case to the facts of a New York project labor agreement. It did not in any way change the overall legality of project labor agreements. The unique provisions of the New York project labor agreement simply didn’t meet the standards set by the Supreme Court, and that is why it was deemed inappropriate.
Project labor agreements are constantly challenged by corporate anti-worker groups, yet the agreements have been repeatedly upheld, most notably by the Supreme Court. Nothing in the New York decision will jeopardize our ability to negotiate a legally binding labor agreement that guarantees that if Gaylord wants $300 million in public money, local workers from Chula Vista and San Diego County will be hired first.
